I said I'd have more on the Williams case. Not much more to say. It's been submitted/filed with SCOTUS. Recap, Williams is a guy that was carrying his gun home from his girlfriends house. The cops saw him acting squirrelly, his method of carry was not in keeping with Maryland's strict rules, and since there is no way he'd be given a CCW Williams hadn't bothered to try. This got him arrested. This case hopes to clear up where Heller stopped: "Yes we have a right to keep and bear at home, but what about outside the home?"
The OTHER Maryland case is Woollard. This is the SAF case with Alan Gura. There's been some movement on this, as well. It's another CCW case, trying to determine what level of scrutiny the legal system should use when seeking to deny someone his 2nd Amendment rights. A member of our local gun rights forum was AT the 4th Circuit hearing, taking notes.
His impression is that the Judge seems to be leaning in that the state can't essentially deny the right to CCW with their may issue (you need a Good & Substantial reason to get a permit here) restrictions, but the state may be able to cordon off broad swaths of densely populated areas in the interest of public safety. Or until another case settles that. Further impression... the State's attourney is in trouble, and won't like the conclusion. So that could be good news.
This population density thing concerns me, knowing my legislators. Ravens stadium during a rock concert is crowded. Normal tourist day around the Inner Harbor, Baltimore is crowded. A townhouse development in the suburbs is crowded. Heck, even a company softball game with 50 folks playing or watching is crowded in some lights. I wonder where the judge is going with this.
And what will population density do to the folks that already have a CCW but happen to live or work and got threatened in densely populated areas?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
So they are trying to base their attack against the RKBA based on the number of Sheeple present during any given moment? Hmmm. So under their line of reasoning, let's just say (hypothetically, of course), that you have a small island full of kids attending Camp, but because there's a lot of them, a CCW Holder would be banned from carrying there because there's a lot of kids? So if a Neo-Nazi Nut Job decided that, because they might grow up to be Good Socialists, he could show up and start Massacring them, all while delaying the Police with a car bomb in the nearby Capital. And no Citizen with a J-Frame could end the Madness. Not that such a thing could EVER happen, of course.
Texas Tower, Columbine, Va. Tech, Ft. Hood, Tucson, Oslo, what's the thing they ALL had in common? Lots of People to shoot.
Here's the real issue. It goes back to Big Tim Sullivan and the law he got passed a hundred years ago in NYC. No Guns Allowed, because you might just shoot the Corrupt Politician and his Thugs and Cronies, and the Ruling Scum can't have that threat around them when they come out to Promise their "Pie in the Sky" to the Masses so they can get Re-Elected.
But let them place that Argument before SCOTUS. It should fly like a Lead Balloon.
This really comes down to another case in the 4th circuit, Masciandaro.
Regardless of whether or not the judge in this case agrees, Masciandaro stands as 4th circuit precedent. Also, the queston being asked of the district court has nothing to do with location, population density, the color of the sky, etc, so this is all hypothetical which Judge Legg said during the hearing. Location, population density, etc are all things that will have to be argued in a separate case.
I'll quote from the note taker, Judge Legg must:
"rule on the constitutionality of the "Good and Substantial" requirement - not anything else."
Legal battles are on small, focused piece at a time. Have patience. We didn't get all these silly laws on the books in one day, we aren't going to dismantle them in a single case.
What other constitutional rights are null & void depending upon population density?....
Post a Comment